Are we really overpopulated?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Norsefire, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What kind of experiment ?
    By the way, you are not serious about this right ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Maybe "world" population is just too vast, for some people to much grasp?

    Are you trying to be silly?

    Actually, I agree there are only around 10 million people, if one doesn't try to grasp the "entirity" of world population, but rather considers their "world" to be more like the sphere they have most interest in, have visited, people they have actually met or at least spotted the many faces in various crowds. Most of world population, doesn't exist in the sense of actually seen everybody's faces or anything like that.

    Part of the reason that world population seems so "huge," is that many people have small minds of little imagination, and simply don't grasp such a concept of a huge planet with an overall "huge" number of people upon it. They have trouble seeing the "big picture," of why there must be so many people alive, due to the natural processes of nature, people's natural yearnings for children, how so many people really do help fuel the growth of technology that can then spread and exploit markets worldwide.

    Maybe some people are on the wrong track, to be in too big a hurry to be "global citizens." What of national sovereignity that globalists too quickly love to forget and dismiss? What about being a help to one's more immediate community? Don't some globalist liberal, "enviromental" nutcases say something like, "Think globally, act locally?" Well if they weren't so often busy trying to subvert freedom and personal responsibility, there may actually be something to that. Clean up and improve the world, starting locally? One's own neighborhood is a good place to start, with volunteer work and such, as it's easier to reach. I like the idea of certain "wonderful" neighbors that like to be the place where the neighborhood children hang out. Some parents like to have the children hang out around their home, where they can watch their own children. What a great way to influence the future upcoming generations, if we would more value and spend time with our children, and perhaps, their friends as well.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Uh, perhaps within some of the ridiculously huge wildlife refuges, that could be put to better use, to provide more space for housing naturally-growing numbers of people.

    Part of the problem of land allocation, is rich or elite or special-interest groups hoarding far more land, than they actually put to much practical use.

    I suspect that a huge part of the problem of overcrowded shantytowns, is that the poor are unfairly denied clear title to land anywhere, because the poor lack enough influence in the politics of their countries. Why build a nice home, without clear title to land, knowing that anyday, people's homes might be bulldozed, and they might be evicted? Were land properly allocated to better absorb the natural increase of humans, at least the vast and populous communities that may accordingly spring up, at least could be better designed and more beautiful.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Nature is sacrificed daily for more building ground for houses. It's sickening.
    Before long we will all life in a concrete world.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2008
  8. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    What if human societies, are already more naturally pronatalist, than you realize?

    And yet I find many mothers, that come out to our annual Walk For Life walks, to benefit our local Pregnancy Care Center. Families come out, father, mother, children, and we have a fun time meeting people of religious faith, of like mind.

    Some guy I once worked with, said his wife wanted to have around 6 children. Of course I told him to go for it, he wouldn't be sorry. Very few people manage to have "too many" children after the fact of their having been born, because children "grow" on parents, and they somehow adjust. Which child would you wish had never been born? Well usually, most parents could never choose such a thing, after the fact. That's a practical reason against use of any means of "birth control," as even supposedly having "too many" children, isn't really too many. Surely I would love ALL my children? Even if they at times seem "too many," it's still all well worth it.

    And wouldn't some women balk at society putting most all the burden of "family planning" upon the woman? I think quite many, more than many people might suspect, mothers, may actually prefer to let their family grow a bit "large," than to be "bothered" with awkward unnatural contraceptives. Consider all the curious examples of "resistance" to use of "birth control" that might be observed in our society. Some time ago, a square dance caller told me that it seemed like every time he took off his pants, his wife became pregnant. They had 5 children and finally he had the operation. Why stop when you are on a roll?, I must have asked him. Anyway, my point is, sounds like they weren't using any "birth control." I suspect a very common way that families can become "large," is not so much that it was originally "planned," but a family just had their 4th child, and still they haven't got around to selecting a "satisfactory" method of "birth control," may not even quite seem to realize that if they don't "do something," their family is already getting a bit on the "large" size. For all the rampant pushing of contraception, as they say, you can't fool all the people all the time. Nature still tends to win out, and families continue to grow. I suspect quite many people, don't even much realize that having an "extra" 3rd child, how much that supposedly contributes towards the growing global overall population size. As the cruel and close-minded "environmental" nonsense of "Stop at Two" children, just doesn't address the practical concerns of families.

    Don't blame me. We are all responsible. Don't we all continually feel the powerful natural reproductive urges within our bodies? I'm not wrong to point out, that a little (or a lot) urban sprawl here and there, is but a small price to pay, for continuing to enjoy having all the children we were meant to have. As somebody said somewhere, either we curb how many children we have, or we find space for more families. Which do you think is the easier sell to growing families? Since we have to somehow find space for more families, urban sprawl seems an obvious option. Build more cities and towns, more suburbs, more places to put so many people and all their progeny. So we can continue to celebrate the natural baby booms and such, and behave well and civilized towards our fellow man.

    Obviously, I don't consider wild animals worth anything near to what human beings are worth. Animals don't vote and don't pay taxes, so why should they be a major priority anyway?

    I seriously doubt that you have seen more than 10 million people. If you had some clicker counter in your pocket, and clicked off every person you ever met, or every face you ever spotted, you would be well under 10 million people.

    Do you have any idea just how many, a billion people is? Counting a person a second, 24-7, it would take 30 years to count to a billion. It's true that most people simply do not exist, in terms of having seen or met them, until you consider that the scent of so many human bodies may add up and have some effect on wild animals with more sensitive sense of smell, or that so many people breathe the same atmospheric air, or that their economic activities make it easier for us to take all the technology and products in the stores we shop, for granted. While so many people do use much resources, so many people also does much to help liberate those resources so that we may use them too. Most oil and coal mining, probably didn't occur until the last century or so, as smoky and inefficient firewood was easier for smaller populations to tap to use for heat and cooking.

    I also consider it practically impossible to even try to "limit" how many billions of babies can possibly push out of a billion or more human fertile birth canals, a practical reason why I oppose any effort of human population "control." For each person who dies, another 3 babies are born, 4 or 5 babies naturally emerging somewhere throughout the huge planet, each second. The numbers of women of childbearing age, continues to naturally grow, throughout much of the vast world. It seems that nature wants our human population and presense, even bigger, especially if people would behave responsibly and make wise decisions. Human population growth is a very natural and very human-beneficial process, so I have long advocated large families worldwide, so that far more people may experience life.

    Have all the crackpots descended upon 1 thread? Don't you know, any serious forum "overpopulation" discussion, is going to attract all sorts of diverse views? It's a very poorly understood subject actually. Quite many people still naively seem to believe, that population is no big deal. People die and people are born every day. Doesn't that sort of "balance" things out? Few people seem to much understand the nature of human population growth, that births naturally, with humans, tend to outpace deaths, and the human population size is naturally accumulating, very good for us, as we would rather celebrate births to people we know, than deaths. With longer lifespan, nature all the more favors our population growth, as people have babies when they are younger, and die quite often long after they are too old to have more babies anyway. Most babies now survive long enough to grow up and have still more babies of their own, so naturally human populations are going to accumulate, and thus have to spread and/or densify, of which there are ample options available to absorb so many "burgeoning billions" of people, if only people would be a bit more willing to intelligently explore them.
     
  9. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    And when the veil is lifted, we will see more clearly just how vast the planet actually is, and how sparsely it has been populated compared to what could have been potentially possible.

    While many countries have supposedly "more than enough" people, many other countries hardly have much population at all. But it should not be any "shame" to have "more than enough" people, because it isn't about having the mimimal number of people supposedly required to staff some socialist society "machine," so that rich elites don't have to do any productive work themselves, nor are people but worthless pawns or cogs in some "machine," but in practical terms where the people live at, more and more people would be glad to live, so if some place or way can be found to add or absorb more and more people into societies, especially the people's own beloved progeny, why not?
     
  10. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    It's not sickening. It's beautiful to watch the human race naturally "blossoming" in size, and we could do it so much better, growing on purpose, stating the reasons why, rather than doing sick "experiments" upon people as if they were lab rats, with the Big Pharma rampant pushing of awful contraceptive potions and poisons. What about respect for families? What about respect for the dignity and sacredness of each and every human life?

    And why should the world be made of only concrete? Skyscrapers now are often build more of steel and glass, as concrete in comparison is heavy and inefficient, better suited for shorter buildings. There's also plastic and metal, or most anything that can long last and hold up to the weather, to keep people's homes safe, healthy, and dry.

    I like to see more housing developments and suburbs being built, to help keep housing affordable for the working poor, and for their naturally-growing families.

    I curiously notice, that quite much of sci-fi, seems to be quite fine with a hugely-increased global population, imagining that population-driven technology, has coped with it quite nicely. I find it curious, that the scenic high-rise view of typical housing residents in The Jetsons futuristic cartoon, includes the view of seeing other nearby highrises. Just the normal natural thing, for people to be "stacked" high up into the sky? As if the people just have little idea nor care, just to what huge population levels they may have gradually risen to. Humans fill the skies in flying cars, and live far too comfortably and modern poverty-free lives, to much even notice the supposedly "sickening" natural planetary-urbanization change.
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    uke:
     
  12. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Wow, prontalist, interesting thoughts. I read every third word right to left and understood it better than I did when reading every word left to right. I'm still trying to figure out the cipher, though. change natural the-I guess is a good place to start.

    Enmos-not at all, I mean, take luxemburg, they claim to have like a million people or something, but there's really only 463 people there, at least 2 of which may not be quite"human" I only count them out of thoroughness.
     
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    :bugeye: Source !?
     
  14. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    So, just for the sake of argument, let's say there are 6 billion or so people on the planet. Why don't we simply build 60 or so cavernous underground hives, power them with solar and nuclear backup, pick a continent, make it agricultural use only, pick another, preferably less hospitable one, make it industrial only, other hives on other continents could focus on providing goods and services to trade to these two continents. I mean, really, how many cubic feet does a person really take up? Box them up like eggs, I say. Then Nature is kept all-natural.
     
  15. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Source shmorse, Take a satellite picture, count the people... wait, my mistake, this is a picture of a small farm town in Arkansas. With crumbs on it. hooo that explains alot!
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Seems like an astronomically expensive project and I suspect very few people would want to live in such a Hives.
    I think the solution is birth restriction.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ah.. yep, that would explain it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    We could just sterlize everyone now living, onegeneration and it's all over. That'd be good for nature.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    In the long run perhaps. Imagine the immense waste the world would suddenly find itself in..
    No, I think a gradual decline of the worlds population to a more sustainable size would be preferable.
     
  20. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    But why all the "tampering," and treating people as worthless cattle? What of all the expense? People are both part of nature, and transcend nature, so people should somewhat influence nature as well. We aren't "parasitic" towards nature, but more like a symbiotic relationship with nature. Both sides benefit.

    People shouldn't be forced into human hives, but if human hives is where it's at, let the natural population growth then naturally bring that. I figure with so many people now upon the planet, that's all the more reason humans should have the free roam of the planet, as much as national boundaries can reasonably permit, as maybe it increasingly takes the entire planet just to hold us all?

    People could be boxed up like eggs, if they so choose. But I disagree with "environmentalists" who posit for high density, to keep large areas of nature free of humans. That's drawing unproductive lines, that don't benefit the many people. High density is a voluntary tool for absorbing more population, not something to impose upon people for no good reason.

    So let's not push for the "underground cities" just yet, before there is even much any real need or interest in living such. When, if ever, all the land above is filled with wall-to-wall people, then living underground to find place for even more families, starts making a bit more sense.

    Of course I would be curious about innovative ideas to cut the apparent "cost of living" for the working poor, to all the more encourage them to more naturally have more children. Like if they could build dome or geodesic homes, at a fraction of the cost of conventional homes? Or if they could maybe somehow figure out how to build population arcologies, really cheap, per spacious housing unit, that people would actually WANT to live in?
     
  21. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    But most people understandably don't want to be told how many children they may have.

    I'm a natural introvert, but that doesn't mean I fear or don't like crowds. I just don't tend to do the things so much, that seek the crowds.

    I would much rather live in human "hives" than to bother with unnatural and unpopular "birth restrictions."

    Welcome the natural flow of human life unhindered, how it's supposed to be, and has long been our historical and religious tradition.

    Everybody has their proper natural right/duty to exist and procreate, even if they do sometimes find themselves in "crowded conditions."
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    When the Hives are full they're full. You don't really expect them to pose no birth regulations in those hives, do you ?
    And the environments humans have been creating for themselves for thousands of years ARE artificial. Your current environment is for the most part, if not completely, artificial. Humans thrive in them, as is obvious from the unrelenting global population growth.
    We will reach a limit soon, I'm sure of it. Don't cry when it happens.
     
  23. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Babies don't just decline in size, if they are healthy and doing well.

    I see it like a "planetary pregnancy," as a useful metaphor. All parts need to and should be expected to grow naturally in population. Welcome the natural baby booms to spring up, persist, intensify and spread naturally. Discourage all forms of anti-people, anti-family "birth control." Encourage all the more humans to join in, pair up, marry and reproduce, so that all the more people may experience life. The human race can't remain "small" forever, but needs to "grow up." The baby isn't supposed to linger in the womb too long, but should naturally "outgrow" the womb and be "born" into some far better realm, even though we may not understand such a coming realm so well, yet.

    Let the naturally-growing world population naturally thicken and spread, for the greater good of the populous many. There can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. The natural increase of humans, is already gradual enough, to allow the ample time and options to somehow absorb more and more people, into every nation and community, primarily their very own natural increase—their very own children!
     

Share This Page